Specifically, the D1h and D1x. Assuming new glass, what physical limitations would one encounter using these old dSLRs?
Specifically, the D1h and D1x. Assuming new glass, what physical limitations would one encounter using these old dSLRs?
So rise up, o ye lost ones
As one we will claw the clouds
Rise up, the forsaken and dethroned
A legion wronged, to claw the clouds
The first that comes to mind is poor battery life. The Ni-MH batteries would almost certainly be well past their best, but you may get lucky and the ones supplied are decent after-market ones.what physical limitations would one encounter using these old dSLRs?
Nothing really apart from battery life. But saying that you can get replacements from battery Barn (in the US) and from Uniross quite cheaply. I have three batteries and I find that does me for a day.
A few more things that some may find problematic are the largest size memory card you can use is 2 GB due to the FAT 16 format, also the computer interface is Firewire not USB and the rear screen is a bit on the small side compared to more modern cameras.
I have a D1x and it does me proud. The unique sensor interpolates to 10mp with no loss of quality, being a pro body it's built like a tank and very easy to use. I've used mine in the pouring rain and the only thing I worried about was the lens getting wet. I recently shot a wedding with mine and the results were spot on.
What else do you want to know?
BSRIPN (Officially full of it..)
Thank you for the advice and comments. I've found a D2H for cheap (250$US) with less than 5,000 actuations on it (it was a back up camera) and that looks to be an even bigger improvement over the d1x/h I was looking at.
I like the heft honestly, as well as the rugged/solid construction.
Just mainly wondering about things like technology of the sensor and if the MP rating of then is equivalent to the (same) MP rating of today, or are the earlier ones more prone to noise at the same ISO, or chromatic aberation, etc..
So rise up, o ye lost ones
As one we will claw the clouds
Rise up, the forsaken and dethroned
A legion wronged, to claw the clouds
I would hold out for a D1x if I were you, the D1h is 2MP and very good quality but the D1x at 5MP is much nicer in most respects.
If you buy replacement batteries, make sure that you transfer the battery "doors" from genuine Nikon batteries, they have a superior latch and fit better.
Pretty sure I read something about the D2H and its JFET LBCAST sensor (another unique one, this time developed solely by Nikon) is pretty impressive, but throttled to 4.1 Mp because the electronics in the camera can't process all the data from the sensor. Good points over the D1x, newer, far better battery, USB interface. Dunno about picture quality compared with the D1x.
BSRIPN (Officially full of it..)
Not much in it image quality wise, the D1x has a few plus points like the 1/16,000s shutter speed and 1/500 flash sync. All dpends on what your requirements are.Pretty sure I read something about the D2H and its JFET LBCAST sensor (another unique one, this time developed solely by Nikon) is pretty impressive, but throttled to 4.1 Mp because the electronics in the camera can't process all the data from the sensor. Good points over the D1x, newer, far better battery, USB interface. Dunno about picture quality compared with the D1x.
I'd rather go for an F4 and scan my results than get anything earlier than a D2x, mostly for the megapixels.
But since that's not the point of the question, let's just move on... ;o)
Oh. really? Last time I was up at Ffordes I was seriously thinking about getting a D2x as they had several at the time and I had equipment to sell - got talking to the chap there and he said for what I do he'd recommend sticking with my D1x in fact he said a local lad (to them) used one all the time for shooting weddings with great results.I'd rather go for an F4 and scan my results than get anything earlier than a D2x, mostly for the megapixels.
I've got a stack of reviews (old AP mags etc) for the D2x and really wanted one but on their advice I've decided to stick with what I've got and am really happy with it, I just bough a few more batteries
The only time I've used my F4E is when my battery ran out in the Lakes last year and I carried my film camera for backup. Still not developed the film - but I do like the sound it gives on full chat
Aye, but a good used D1x is half the price of a used D2x. Mine was in near mint condition for £400 with mains adapter included whereas a D2x in not as good condition is about £800 (shop prices). There is the advantage of course that I get my results straight away with the digi than having to wait for my film to get developed (which in my case is usually months) - still that's been done to death so let's move on
But since that's not the point of the question, let's just move on... ;o)
BSRIPN (Officially full of it..)
Having owned a D1x and now a couple of D2x bodies I have to say that I prefer the D2 in most respects, especially the battery life. Yes the D1x is very nice and has excellent noise performance but the D2x really is much nicer.
Of course it is easier to find a good D2x than any D1x currently, which is a consideration for us as we both use the same model, there are 3 D2x bodies in our house. Getting 3 D1x bodies would have taken much longer to achieve and travelling with the requisite number of EN4 batteries would be a nightmare. In nine days we used three batteries between us, with D1xs we would probably have needed two per day from my experience. That would mean carrying four each because of the recharging time with the sequential charger.
From a practical point of view the battery issue would stop me from buying another D1x. Despite the 3rd party batteries being cheap nothing can make them last as long as the EN-EL4/4a in the D2 series. The D1x is a great camera but I prefer the D2x.
I've been using a D2H for a year or so, and would highly recommende it - even the "small" 4.1 mp hasn't caused me any probs - easily does respectable 20x16 prints.
If you can get one for $250, I'd bite the sellers hand off!
Has anyone else noticed how us Nikon users are looking to the past while contributers to the Olly thread are looking to the future?
What about Nikon users contributing to the Oly thread?Has anyone else noticed how us Nikon users are looking to the past while contributers to the Olly thread are looking to the future?
"Wrong on so many different levels."
Blog - Contre Dour - Capturing the ordinary for posterity.
Flickr
Correct me if I'm wrong. I am not the only person doing so. You have been known to show interest in micro four thirds yourself.What about Nikon users contributing to the Olly thread?
That's why I'm asking. On, and out of interest, why have you added a superflous 'l' to Oly when you quoted me?Correct me if I'm wrong. I am not the only person doing so. You have been known to show interest in micro four thirds yourself.What about Nikon users contributing to the Olly thread?
"Wrong on so many different levels."
Blog - Contre Dour - Capturing the ordinary for posterity.
Flickr
I don't know anything about the 'Olly' thread, but perhaps many people look to the past because of the entirely legitimate point of view that the 'future' (and even the present) isn't necessarily an improvement, and that failing to recognize and hold on to what was good in the past actually just leads to impoverishment.Has anyone else noticed how us Nikon users are looking to the past while contributers to the Olly thread are looking to the future?
For myself, I think it's especially true in spheres such as photography, where the future seems to be being driven by an unthinking appetite in the marketplace for more and more technology, regardless of any real benefit to photography.
Oh, you're just an old Luddite - or perhaps theodolite, as I was recently described.I don't know anything about the 'Olly' thread, but perhaps many people look to the past because of the entirely legitimate point of view that the 'future' (and even the present) isn't necessarily an improvement, and that failing to recognize and hold on to what was good in the past actually just leads to impoverishment.Has anyone else noticed how us Nikon users are looking to the past while contributers to the Olly thread are looking to the future?
For myself, I think it's especially true in spheres such as photography, where the future seems to be being driven by an unthinking appetite in the marketplace for more and more technology, regardless of any real benefit to photography.
Fully paid up, card-carrying, 47 years of smashing the loom, and proud of it!Oh, you're just an old Luddite - or perhaps theodolite, as I was recently described.
Sorry Barney, I carelessly edited your text as well as my own. For my own words I add an 'l' to 'Oly' to make the 'o' rhyme with the 'o' in hot rather than in holy.and out of interest, why have you added a superflous 'l' to Oly when you quoted me?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
